The War As We Saw It. . . Two Soldier Op-ed Writers Killed

-

COFFIN.jpg
. . .is now very much in the past tense for two US soldiers, now dead, who helped pen an important August 19th New York Times op-ed, “The War As We Saw It,” authored by seven soldiers in Iraq.
FireDogLake has more.
Petraeus called these soldiers the new “Greatest Generation.” Well, a few more of the best and brightest are dead. And more and more will die — and the political deals that might rationalize any of this tragedy and that are needed to stabilize Iraq and the Middle East are not happening.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

25 comments on “The War As We Saw It. . . Two Soldier Op-ed Writers Killed

  1. Kathleen says:

    Susan.. you are correct.. Jews should loathe our WASPS, but survivors of the holocaust are understandably easilly frightened and taken in by tough talk on defending Israel. Many support Bush, even with his grandfather’s past.
    An interesting piece on growing Jewish dissent..
    http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11612
    My point is that I don’t think Republiklans are being used by Israel, but rather the other way around.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If you would execute people for their “brand of ignorance”, you would execute a mass of people in your own ranks.”
    Ok. You win. We’ll just neuter ya’ instead.

    Reply

  3. kotzabasis says:

    If we’re waging a war against terrorism, we should start by executing everyone exhibiting your brand of ignorance.
    PissedOff…
    If you would execute people for their “brand of ignorance”, you would execute a mass of people in your own ranks.

    Reply

  4. liz says:

    That was very well said Steve. Thank you.

    Reply

  5. susan says:

    Jews should loathe our WASPS:
    “George Herbert Walker (George W. Bush’s other great grandfather): Wall Street banker and director or president of G.H. Walker and Co., J.P. Morgan and Co., Guaranty Trust Co., W.A. Harriman and Co., and Union Banking Corporation.
    Walker made his fortune building up the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, financing their oil, coal, steel, and manganese industries, among others. As President of Union Banking Corp. (UBC), he laundered money for Hitler and supplied raw materials essential for Germany’s waging World War II. His most prominent partners in financing Hitler’s war machine were Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush. Together, they ran Harriman-Walker, the Hamburg-Amerika Line (a cover for I.G. Farben’s Nazi espionage unit in the U.S.), the American Ship and Commerce Co. (which smuggled German agents, propaganda, and money into America to bribe American politicians to support the Nazi cause), the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, and the Silesian Holding Company. In addition, their Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation owned 1/3 of a complex of steel-making, coal-mining, and zinc-mining activities in Germany. (Friederich Flick owned two-thirds and was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by the Nuremburg Tribunal, but the American partners were never tried). The Nazi army was equipped by Flick, Harriman, Walker, and Bush with materials stolen from Poland. Meanwhile, Soviet army vehicles were fueled by oil pumped from Baku wells revived by the Harriman/Walker/Bush enterprise.
    When the U.S. government seized the Silesian-American Corp. in 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act,” George Herbert Walker was still the senior director of the company.”
    http://www.communitycurrency.org/BushCrimeFamily.html

    Reply

  6. Kathleen says:

    I think it is extreemely naive to think that the WASPS, especially the Southern KKKer’s in Congress are being used by Israel and Jews. Rather, I think it’s the other way around. Taking a tough stand on “defending’ Isreal is great way to lure Jewish voters and their money away from the Democratic party, while feeding the gluttonous military industrial complex, a lot of which is south of the Mason Dixon line.
    I lived in Atlanta in the 50’s and they came around with a petition against ever having a Catholic president and later bombed a synogogue one fine Sunday morning. I doubt they’ve progressed enough to be genuinely concerned about Jews.
    Not that WASPS are exclusively southern. In the 60’s my husband I bought a house in Pelham Manor, N.Y. While refurbishing it, a neighbor came by to tell us some things about the community. She said she was very proud of the fact that there were no Jews in Pelham Manor. I refused to raise my children in such a community, so we sold our house without moving in and purchased a home in Westport, CT. a much more diverse community.
    In my opinion, Israel was formed so that the US and the UK wouldn’t have to take in all the Jewish refugees. Small detail they had to scoop a bunch of Arabs out of the way to do it.
    If you doubt that WASPS run this country, ask yourself how many non-WASP presidents we’ve had. Exactly one and he was killed before the end of his term and his brother before he had a chance to be elected.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But the greatest tragedy would have been if the American people and their leaders would lie belly-up before this mortal threat issuing from the attack on 9/11.”
    If we’re waging a war against terrorism, we should start by executing everyone exhibiting your brand of ignorance.

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    This is all you need to know about Petraeus….
    “Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush’s troop increase. According to a report in the Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell’s office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.”
    Any questions? He is lying pond scum. My desire is that someone frag his ass when he gets back to Iraq and he spends the rest of his worthless life propped up in a wheel chair thinking about his missing arms and legs.
    Superior Derided Petraeus as Suck-Up, Opposed the Surge
    by Gareth Porter
    In sharp contrast to the lionization of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the US Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’ superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
    Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickens**t” and added, “I hate people like that,” the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
    That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon’s mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus’ recommendation for continued high levels of US troops in Iraq during the summer.
    The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to “bad relations” between them is “the understatement of the century.”
    Fallon’s derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander’s personal distaste for Petraeus’ style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.
    The policy context of Fallon’s extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus’ agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration’s effort to sell its policy of increasing US troop strength in Iraq to Congress.
    In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush’s troop increase. According to a report in the Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell’s office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.
    Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus’ role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia – the area for which Fallon’s CENTCOM is responsible.
    The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. “He is very focused on Pakistan,” said a source familiar with Fallon’s thinking, “and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran.”
    By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world’s largest population of Islamic extremists.
    Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.
    Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results “as soon as possible.” The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.
    Fallon also expressed great skepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, the Washington Post quoted a “senior administration official” as saying that Fallon had been “saying from Day One, ‘This isn’t working.'”
    One of Fallon’s first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term “long war” – a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.
    Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of US occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that US troops would remain in the region indefinitely.
    During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the US mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the US troop strength by the end of 2009.
    The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.
    Fallon’s presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus’ recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus’ role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation’s highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.
    Fallon had a “visceral distaste” for what he regarded as Petraeus’ sycophantic behavior in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.
    Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. “If you are Navy captain and don’t have two or three enemies, you’re not doing your job,” says the source.
    Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.
    He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.
    A crucial element of Petraeus’ path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.
    The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between US military leaders in recent history.
    (Inter Press Service)

    Reply

  9. ... says:

    i am sorry to see the death of another 2 soldiers.. i am also sorry to know that in spite of news coverage many more innocent iraqis are dying as we visit internet sites devoted to examining these issues at this moment and their lifes are not going to be covered on sites like this..
    i am not confident in americans to make the right decision in the next election.. their is too much vested interest in keeping things the way they presently are.. sad, but i think it is true.. it is too late for americans to wake up and even if they want to, their choices are absolutely dismal. a 2 party system that doesn’t work is in place at present . then again it is a plutocracy so i guess even that doesn’t matter..
    will steve comment on this? he hasn’t yet, and i doubt he will in the future.. one day the washington note will be a memory.

    Reply

  10. kotzabasis says:

    Clemons forgets that all wars by their nature are tragic. And the “political deals” that always come on the heels of war can never rationalize tragedy. They are the bastard offspring of victorious war and the NECESSITY of war in circumstances when one’s freedom and existence are at stake.
    But the greatest tragedy would have been if the American people and their leaders would lie belly-up before this mortal threat issuing from the attack on 9/11.

    Reply

  11. Pernicious Pavlovian says:

    Empty boots. That’s all that America gets from Bush’s “great adventure” in Iraq. Empty boots. What a serio-comedic farce of Shakesperean proportion. Alas poor Yorick, his boots are dirty. Still! Empty boots and George B. rises every morning and puts his on. Empty boots and the mothers of those empty boots feel the loss. Empty boots and Dick Cheney has a meeting with a shotgun this very day. Empty boots and where is Colin Powell? Empty boots and Dr. Death Rumsfeld believes America “won in Afghanistan.” Sure we did Dr. Death, sure we did. Empty boots and more empty boots are on the way. God Almighty, America has surely lost Her way.

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    Great news! Russia has developed the pefect vehicle to transport the christian zionist up to God when the “end time” comes.
    “Russia tests ‘dad of all bombs”
    It is said to be more powerful than the U.S. “mother of all bombs”
    MOSCOW, Russia (AP) — The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world’s most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia’s state television reported Tuesday.
    The bomb’s detonation is shown in this image taken from videotape.
    It was the latest show of Russia’s military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.
    Channel One television said the new weapon, nicknamed the “dad of all bombs” is four times more powerful than the U.S. “mother of all bombs.”
    “The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability,” said Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military’s General Staff, said in televised remarks. Watch Russian bomb test »
    Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn’t hurt the environment, he added.
    The statement reflected the Kremlin’s efforts to restore Russia’s global clout and rebuild the nation’s military might while the ties with Washington have been strained over U.S. criticism of Russia’s backsliding on democracy, Moscow’s vociferous protests of U.S. missile defense plans, and rifts over global crises.
    The U.S. Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs, is a large-yield satellite-guided, air-delivered bomb described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.
    Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it’s four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn’t identify.
    While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon’s blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.
    Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a “thermobaric” weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.
    Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places — clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.
    Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb’s explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.
    The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.
    It didn’t give the bomb’s military name or say when it was tested.
    Rukshin said the new bomb would allow the military to “protect the nation’s security and confront international terrorism in any situation and any region.”
    “We have got a relatively cheap ordnance with a high strike power,” Yuri Balyko, head of the Defense Ministry’s institute in charge of weapons design, told Channel One.
    Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a more assertive posture in global affairs.
    Last month, President Vladimir Putin said he ordered the resumption of regular patrols of strategic bombers, which were suspended after the 1991 Soviet breakup.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by Joe Klein’s conscience at September 12, 2007 06:45 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    They probably think it’s great.
    I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like the Dr. AIPAC assisted mutual suicide pact between Israel & the US.
    I hope we all live long enough to read about it in the history books. What will the title be “Two Funerals and A Universal Celebration”?

    Reply

  14. Joe Klein's conscience says:

    Carroll:
    What does the Jewish lobby think about Dennis Ross advising Obama?

    Reply

  15. Erica says:

    “the best of us are dying for the worst of us..”
    Probably the saddest and truest thing I’ve heard lately. change our governtment’s priorities – let’s focus on how to benefit the rest of the world. let’s focus on passing the Global Poverty Act in Congress. Let’s stop funding this malignant tumor in our nation’s history.

    Reply

  16. Marcia says:

    The drum beat for attacking Iran is constant,
    Bush and his decorated General are repeating the menace of the day.
    It looks as though we are entering the downward spiral into total lunacy if not suicidal deirium.
    I can no longer see how outside of a general strike that would paralyze the administration there is hope of any return to sanity if a strike on Iran takes place. We need some sort of symbolic action. I remember during the time of the Colonel’s dictatorship in Greece seeing all of Thessalonique, in a sign of protest, come to a halt every day at sunset when the flag was lowered from a very tall pole on the sea wall. People stood silent, cars stopped, even animal drawn carts pulled up. Of course in our giant cities it would have to be something different.
    Congress has lost all sense of duty and sings with the voice of a castrated choir boy.

    Reply

  17. peggy says:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
    In March the London Review of Books published John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s essay ‘The Israel Lobby’. The response to the article prompted the LRB to hold a debate under the heading ‘The Israel lobby: does it have too much influence on American foreign policy?’. The debate took place in New York on 28 September in the Great Hall of the Cooper Union. The panellists were Shlomo Ben-Ami, Martin Indyk, Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer and Dennis Ross, and the moderator was Anne-Marie Slaughter.A video of the event, produced by ScribeMedia, is now available to view online. Click here to view the debate.
    http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/
    the post-debate press conference for this event is now available. You can view it here
    http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/12/israel-lobby-press-conference/

    Reply

  18. karenk says:

    Yep, in war people die-that’s why I’m against them. In their merry lust for war, people often seem to believe that it is necessary, will be quick and painless and their side will win. That’s rarely the case. Because even if you do win, you lose. Good people die.

    Reply

  19. Kathleen says:

    P.S. Those two weren’t fragged like Pat Tillman was, were they?

    Reply

  20. Kathleen says:

    Does anyone know what the offical reason was for our gov’t to have rejected the peace plan proposed by the Iraqi gov’t? Since they agreed to lay down their arms if we withdrew within two years, I don’t understand what was wrong with that plan? How many people have been killed and maimed since we rejected their proposal?
    And Demz are scratching around looking for an alternative Iraq strategy? I don’t get it. Time to fit those Bush Brats with some combat boots.

    Reply

  21. patriot76 says:

    Here’s a photograph of Bushboy formulating his strategy for the next six months in Iraq: http://wwwthepartyofthewidestance.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    It’s been a mystery to me why Brzezinski endorsed him.
    But here’s the gist of the article:
    Obama adviser worries Israel supporters
    By: Ben Smith
    Sep 12, 2007 06:00 AM EST
    Brzezinski’s defense of a book about the ‘Israel Lobby’ angered many of the Jewish state’s backers.
    Barack Obama is outlining his views on the Iraq war in a major speech Wednesday in Iowa, and bringing along a gray-haired source of foreign policy gravitas: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, who says that Obama offers “a new definition of America’s role in the world.”
    With the gravity, though, comes some baggage.
    Brzezinski, 79, stepped into the crossfire this summer when he published an essay in the summer issue of the journal Foreign Policy, defending a controversial new book about the power of the “Israel Lobby” in American politics.
    The book’s authors, Harvard’s Stephen Walt and the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, thanked him for his “incisive defense.”
    But the article inserted him into one of the most heated debates in America-Israel politics, a bitter dispute about whether the authors’ claims smacked of bigotry, whether their critics are – as Brzezinski put it — “McCarthyite.”
    “It is a tremendous mistake for Barack Obama to select as a foreign policy adviser the one person in public life who has chosen to support a bigoted book,” said Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the most visible critics of the Walt and Mearsheimer volume, titled “The Israel Lobby.” (Dershowitz has contributed to the campaign of Obama’s leading rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.)
    And Obama did the usual thing.
    Obama Pulls Campaign Ad on Amazon.com Page of ‘Israel Lobby’
    By RUSSELL BERMAN
    Staff Reporter of the Sun
    September 11, 2007
    WASHINGTON – Wary of alienating Jewish voters, the campaign of Senator Obama has moved swiftly to remove an ad for its Web site that appeared on the Amazon.com page of a book critical of the Israel lobby.
    A small ad for barackobama.com was one of a group of advertisements that rotated as “sponsored links” on the page for “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that has drawn rebuke from supporters of the Jewish state. The Illinois senator’s campaign said it had bought ads on Amazon.com to appear with the keyword category of “politics” through a subsidiary of the popular Internet shopping site.
    The placement on the ” Israel Lobby” page was unintentional, a campaign spokeswoman said, and the ad was gone hours after a New York Sun reporter notified the campaign of its location. “The ad has been removed from the site because the views of the book do not reflect the views of Senator Obama on the U.S.- Israel relationship,” the spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, said.
    In the book, Mr. Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Mr. Walt, a professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, argue that a powerful ” Israel lobby,” which they say includes politicians, journalists, scholars, and students, has steered the government into supporting Israel in ways that run counter to American national interests.
    Ms. Psaki said that although Mr. Obama had not read the book, he was familiar with its arguments and disagreed with them. ” Senator Obama has stated that his support for a strong U.S.- Israel relationship, which includes both a commitment to Israel’s security and to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors, comes from his belief that it’s the right policy for the United States,” she said. “The idea that supporters of Israel have somehow distorted U.S. foreign policy, or that they are responsible for the debacle in Iraq, is just wrong.”
    …and gee whiz, he hasn’t even read the book.
    Personally I am waiting for the real war…Americans vrs US Israelis and Congress, it’s bound to come sooner or later.
    2002 ..Hardball interview with McCain
    McCain: My nightmare – I have several nightmares about Saddam Hussein, but one of them is the that SCUD missile which he has. . . that’s in the view of most, aimed at Israel. Aimed at Israel.”
    Matthews: Why doesn’t Israel take them out?
    McCain: Because I’m not sure we should ask the Israelis to do – to take care of a threat to the United States of America.”
    Matthews: “But you just said it was a threat to Israel.”
    McCain: “Well to..to.. world peace, I think.”
    Matthews: “No you said it was a threat to Israel. Why should the United States deal with a threat to Israel? Why don’t we let Israel – we’ve been giving them $3 billion a year to defend themselves. Why don’t we say, ‘Defend yourselves. You’ve got a clear fight. Go take Saddam out’?”
    McCain: “Because I think it’s our job. I think we’re the world’s leader and I. . .”
    Matthews: “Our job is to defend Israel?”
    McCain: Well it’s our national interest.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    BTW, I finished reading the Israel Lobby …I recommend it. Factual, unemotional and devestating to both the Israeli machine and their partners in our congess.
    And why the Lobby mafia (and their congressional minons) are out after W&M in full smear mode. Take a blood pressure pill before you read it because you are about to find out just how throughly you have been lied to for years and years and how much American blood and treasure has “really” been looted by the Jewish Lobby and their partners in the US congress for decades and decades.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *